BuzzerBeater Forums

Why should it be illogical? Everything depends on the league you're playing in. For example, (5952825) this player has phenomenal passing but he averages 7 assists per game

-really good teams have high passing on their SG, SF, etc. These players will in essence "steal" assists from the PG.

What do you mean here? Is enough to have one/two great assistman per team or you're saying that tall of them are giving their contribution? Taking as example a team with lvl 20 in reb for every single player, do you think that this team will take 200 rebounds? My opinion is that there is a limit in the numbers of assists and really if you've great players with high passage probably you've wasted some more useful training but I still don't know which could be the best compromise. What do you think about it?

I think the only limit on rebounds is the number of missed shots. So you have 20 rebounding on all players, that doesn't mean you will get 200 rebounds. It just means that if there are 120 missed shots you'll probably get 100 of them. (just random numbers)

My opinion is that there is a limit in the numbers of assists

You will not see me disagree there. It is why a SG or SF with high passing can "steal" assists.

and really if you've great players with high passage probably you've wasted some more useful training but I still don't know which could be the best compromise. What do you think about it?

I don't think passing (or handling) is wasted on any player - and that goes right down to your PF and C. They may "steal" assists and make your PG look worse than he is. But better passes all around means better quality looks. And that means more baskets for your team at the end of the day.

Yes of course it was an example but what I wanna say is that having 5 players lvl 20 in passage imho doesn't mean that you will make 100 assists at the end of the match.

I agree with that.
However, I bet if you had 5 players with level 20 in passing, driving and jumpshot and inside shot and jump range and rebounding, and they were playing in div 5 in a weak league against the weakest team then they would get 100 assists :D hahahaha

Last edited by Naker Virus at 8/30/2010 3:18:08 PM

Its really important to have good passing on PG-SG-SF.

Correction (my opinion): It's really important to have good passing in all positions :))

I’ve been training PGs a lot in the past few seasons. I used to focus more on the big men, but it didn’t take long for me to figure out that it’s much harder to find guards than centers on the TL are a price I could afford, so I just decided I’ll pretty much only train guards, and especially PGs since I could single-position train there. In short, I know about training guards. That being said, here is my observation:

It takes much longer to train a guard than a center (or PF for that matter) since there are more skills involved, and less allowance for weaknesses. A team can play with center with, say, not-so-great IS if that player still has a decent JS and the offense is outside oriented. And really, for a center, the main skills are IS, ID and RB. Poor ratings at other positions (especially HN!) are definitely not good, but aren’t devastating to a lineup. PGs cannon be weak at JS, HN, PA, and OD, and they are deficient players without at least decent JR and DV. And there’s the inside skills, too, which are better if none are atrocious (especially RB!). So to really get any one of a PGs skills to a great level, it often has to come at the cost of another skill. My best guards have all been really well-rounded (I have one player at least proficient at all 6 key skills and another at least prominent at all 6, and another at least respectable at 11 of all 12 skills), yet only one of these well-rounded guards hits wondrous at one particular skill. My only other guard to have a wondrous rating anywhere is deficient elsewhere and it shows when he’s in the lineup. And why is this? Because unlike a center, the guards handle the ball pretty much every possession (I assume), especially the PG. Poor HN or PA in a PG is worse than with a C (though when I’ve started a C at PG, this hasn’t always been proven true…). And I’ve seen what happens when I put a poorer OD in the lineup (it can be really bad if the other team is solid at guard).

So while I can choose to create a passing monster, what I’d have to give up in that player’s training is too much to make him my best lineup option because of the inevitable deficiencies. It takes a lot of effort to really train these guards up, which is why it’s harder to then release these players on the TL, and why there are fewer of guards of comparable skill to the many centers we see on the TL, and the guards are then pricier as a result. And the end product of this hard work in training guards doesn’t typically translate into superstar guards, usually just well-rounded guards or super specialists. There are some exceptional guards out there, but the ones we notice are often the ones who can score 40 points per game (but not many assists), and not the ones who dish out an eye-popping 9 assists per game.

I understand the reasons for PGs not picking up that many assists - the difficulty of training, the quality of a pass not being good enough according to the GE, etc.

Personally I like PGs in basketball - players like Rondo, Nash, Stockton are like having a coach on the floor during offence. It would be nice if there was a way of playing that could replicate the power of the PG in this game and make him the orchestrator on offence - so he needn't score points or even be a great shooter but run the show as a pure PG.

Those PGs who have got far enough to get to around 8 assists or above with 14+ passing in this game have terrible shooting % even with sensational JS, proficient JR and importantly proficient+ experience. There's a few such players on the TL who are averaging 29-40% from the field even when they have big men on their team with over 50% shooting. Such poor decision making at the point? Is there a basketball logic to this?

Check out these two games for some decision making at the point. (23028854) & (23234211)